Montaldo wie man geld mit binarem handel verdienen
According to an Ontario court, the answer is yes. This is a scenario that is likely repeated every year across the country in a variety of industries. In this case, a real estate developer engaged a video developer to produce a sales video for a residential condominium project. In Vanderveen v Waterbridge Media Inc. For advice regarding privacy rights, personality rights, drone law, and video development contracts, contact Field Law.
While the dispute has yet to go to trial, there are some interesting lessons for software vendors and licensees: However, the agreement itself allowed each party to terminate for no reason on very short notice, making it difficult to argue that this outcome — one that both sides had agreed to — would cause harm.
If it caused so much harm, why did ProPurchaser agree to it in the first place? If changes are made to the software license agreement, particularly regarding the essential business terms like license fees and support fees, make sure these amendments are captured in writing, through a revised pricing schedule, or detailed invoicing that has been accepted by both sides.
Business Issues , Trade-marks. The lessons for business? If the departure is too great, the rights to the original mark may be placed at risk. December 01st, Category: By Richard Stobbe An online video shows someone jogging on a public pathway during a 2-second clip. While Canadian law appears to have some clarity on this topic, the Alexandria Surveys decision in the US does raise questions — questions that are compounded in light of the fact that intangible assets like domain names are designed to be used without regard to any particular country or jurisdiction.
In a recent decision released by the Canadian Privacy Commissioner PIPEDA Report of Findings , the commissioner investigated a complaint that Google pitched ads to an individual based on medical information that he disclosed while surfing various health-related websites. In this case, the individual who initiated the complaint was using Google to search for information related to a medical device used to treat a specific medical condition.
Express consent is required for use of this kind of sensitive personal information. In Cinar Corporation v.
Robinson , SCC 73, the court reviewed Mr. I am often asked when or why someone can copy the ideas of someone else. Ideas themselves are not protected by copyright law.
Many features of a TV show or a movie are simply non-protectable, including ideas, elements drawn from the public domain or generic components of a story, like heroes, villains, conflict and resolution.
However, in this case, the idea was articulated and expressed in a set of original written materials which resulted from the skill and judgement of the author. The court framed this fascinating issue in this way: In the end, the court rejected the notion that the two works must be compared piecemeal to determine if protectable elements of the original work were similar to the copy.
This decision will be applied in other copyright infringement situations in Canada, including art, media, music and software. As the court noted: In Eagle Professional Resources v. Eagle alleged that its ex-employees took confidential information from Eagle, and began soliciting clients, employees, and contractors of Eagle to work for Maplesoft.
The defendant ex-employees argued that they did not use any confidential information to solicit business. They asserted that any contact information that they used was already publicly available through LinkedIn or Facebook accounts. When reviewing the enforceability of restrictive covenants in the employment context, the court reiterated a three-part test when in doubt, there is always a handy three-part test: According to the Defendants, the information that they learned at Eagle was all publicly available and obtained from such sources as social media websites.